Lightweight, my man! What's up?! (besides OMVS)
You're looking at it the wrong way. You can't apply Panamanian logic. I did not say "this is not that company," so you cannot say in response, "yes this is not that company."
Like I asked before, who is writing these articles about gagged TAs and such? Does it pass the CRAAP test? Specifically, the AAP (Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose) in CRAAP:
Currency: The timeliness of the information.
? When was the information published or posted?
? Has the information been revised or updated?
? Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
?Are the links functional?
Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.
? Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
? Who is the intended audience?
? Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
? Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
? Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?
Authority: The source of the information.
? Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
? What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations?
? Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
? Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
?Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?
examples: .com .edu .gov .org .net
Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness and correctness of the content.
? Where does the information come from?
? Is the information supported by evidence?
? Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
? Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
? Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
? Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?
Purpose: The reason the information exists.
? What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?
? Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
? Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
? Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
? Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?
